The Dailykos user arodb posted a few diaries last month discussing how we as a society should treat criticism, ridicule, satire, or what have you, of North Korea, particularly in light of their apparent lack of compunction in resorting to violent reprisals. I feel that this discussion relates to the current situation surrounding the recent Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks.
There is this notion held by a vocal group of Muslims, that Charlie Hebdo and people like them, who in any way use the image of Mohammed, are deserving of punishment up to and including having violence brought upon them. And that since this is a central part of their religious beliefs, that they are somehow justified in every sense. Keep in mind that I qualify that notion as coming primarily from a more extreme branch of Islamic adherents, and not necessarily characteristic of all Muslims or the Islamic religions or cultures on the whole.
Still, it is because of these vocal adherents and their specific interpretation of their religion that we have to address these ideas, that somehow this violence against people who do something that offends the members of the certain religion is justified. After all, these people explicitly say that it goes against their beliefs, that it is an actual affront against their religion, that they believe what they are doing is righteous, that since they warned these journalists that this violence was likely, that the onus is on these journalists to alter their behaviors, not the other way around.
And likewise, this issue with North Korea, Sony pictures and the makers of The Interview, brought up similar issues. That since North Korea is of the mindset that anything that offends them is worthy of a violent or otherwise illegal reprisal, and also since North Korea is of the nature that such reprisals are reasonably likely to be effected, Sony pictures or whoever should be compelled to avoid offending or ridiculing North Korea in any way. In other words, the threat of violence or illegal activity against Sony as a result of Sony’s legal activities legitimizes us as a society to compel Sony to alter their behavior, and prevent them from exercising free speech.
Here is my general response to the debate brought up by the North Korea diaries. It is edited, and you can read the original here.
...the onus should not be on the creator to express himself in a way that does not offend a particular group. If anything, that is the whole point of satire, and that is essentially the whole point of the freedom of speech.
The onus is on the group being ridiculed, no matter how that ridicule manifests, to realize that acting illegally, violently, and/or vengefully, is not in the scope of a legitimate reaction to said ridicule, especially when it is in the forums protected by freedom of speech.
If someone is a rapist, should we refrain from calling him a rapist if he threatens to attack us, kill us, or rape again? No, he shouldn't do any of those regardless.
In other words, we must not forget that what the so-called parties who have been offended are doing, as a result of their perceived injuries, is already illegal or unacceptable as a normal part of our society.
It may be true that the form of ridicule exercised by the victims of these reprisals was not particularly tasteful, or respectful, or contributed significantly to thoughtful discourse at all. But qualifying the form of free speech that is and isn't protected from unacceptable reprisal only serves to legitimate the reprisals.
We deal with a lot of the same rhetoric when it comes to other issues. For instance rape apologists who talk about women who shouldn't dress provocatively, become intoxicated, or behave in a certain manner. Or defenders of police brutality and stop and frisk as chastising black men for not acting subservient enough or dressing or acting in a not suspicious way. Should we be entertaining these ideas if they really could conceivably affect how many women get raped, or how many black men get unfairly targeted by police?
No. As a society we have already established that rape of any victim is never justified. And we have already established that prejudice and institutionalized practices that amount to racial profiling are not acceptable out of our police forces.
But when it comes to the issue of religion, people who consider themselves liberal seem far more willing to engage with this pernicious tendency to victim-blame. Perhaps it is because so many people identify their religion as being so integral to their being, whereas things like rape or racial bigotry are not seen as being so necessary to our identities, that makes them more defensive when it comes to criticizing religion.
Still, the fact remains that regardless of how offensive you may find an attack on something like your religion, when the attack comes in the form of free speech, as a modern civil society that aims to protect the rights of its participants to act with liberty, we must firmly denounce any acts of violence, even simply threats of violence, or illegal activity as a response to that free speech.
I share my sincere condolences for the families of the French citizens slaughtered yesterday in the violent terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo. But I feel confident that the best way to honor their legacies and memories is to acknowledge that what they were doing is expressing their free speech, which should in no way be restricted by any sense of a violent threat for whatever it is they expressed. To do otherwise would only lessen the work they were doing and others now do, in utilizing free speech to broaden our horizons.
I also empathize with the vast majority of peaceful adherents of the Islamic religion, both in France and elsewhere, who have been ostracized or likewise targeted with reprisals as a result of these attacks or previous events. They are and will be unfairly burdened with responsibility for the crimes committed by other so-called adherents, while they themselves only wish to live peacefully. But it must also be acknowledged that even in some of these circles of Muslims who consider themselves peace-loving, there is still this call to silence critics and prevent things like satirizing and parodying their religious icons, and it must be understood that it is that aversion to facing valid critique that empowers factions like the Hebdo attackers, not Islam itself.
We live in a world of double standards and contradiction. We live in a country that supposedly denounces torture yet protects people who have tortured. We afford many protections for our own workers, while turning a blind eye to the lack of the same protections overseas. We contend with people who are free to brandish guns and access all manner of life-threatening weaponry. There are many other forms of intolerance practiced in countries throughout the world, where gays, atheists, and the poor are shamefully disenfranchised, abused, and worse.
Nevertheless, as long as any of us have been alive, one of the most sacred and protected notions in our modern laws and societies has been that no lawful, free exercise of a person’s individual rights is worthy of being by illegal and violent threats or acts against the individual or their friends and family.